New Zealand’s methane reset
Posted: 10 December 2025
In October 2025, the government confirmed it will reset New Zealand’s biogenic methane target for 2050; it will move from the legislated 24–47% below 2017 levels, to a 14–24% range, while keeping the 10% cut by 2030 and the net-zero target for long-lived gases.
Ministers framed the change as aligning the law with the ‘no additional warming’ approach and recent science. Legislation amending the Climate Change Response Act 2002 (CCRA) is expected before the end of the year.
Who is happy?
The farming sector welcomed the change as a return to what it called ‘realistic’ targets that recognise methane’s short-lived nature. It follows the government’s earlier decision to scrap the He Waka Eke Noa pricing pathway and to remove agriculture from the Emissions Trading Scheme. Farmers believe the lower range reduces existential pressure on farming businesses and allows focus on practical mitigations (breeding, inhibitors, feed tech, etc) instead of a levy.
But who is not pleased?
Climate scientists and environmental organisations criticised the reset as a retreat from ambition. The Climate Change Commission had advised tightening the 2050 methane cut to 35–47%, not weakening it, to keep New Zealand on a consistent path of 1.5°C, being the global climate goal of limiting average warming as set out in the 2015 Paris Agreement.
Critics also worry the government is leaning on the ‘no additional warming’ framing to justify slower cuts, which they say risks higher cumulative warming and undermines international credibility. Pacific climate officials also voiced disappointment, stressing regional vulnerability to warming-driven sea-level rise.
Economic ramifications
In the short term, the reset eases compliance and cost uncertainty for the primary sector, New Zealand’s largest export engine, by removing an impending farm-level price and lowering the statutory target trajectory. It is supportive for farm profitability and investment confidence, especially amid tight margins and volatile commodity prices.
In the medium term, however, risk shifts to market access and brand value: key customers and trade partners such as supermarkets, financiers and governments increasingly require demonstrable progress on agricultural emissions. If the reset is perceived as backsliding, exporters could face stricter private sector standards or sustainability premiums that erode any domestic cost advantage.
The government points to increased funding for agricultural research and development, and on-farm tools to deliver reductions without pricing. However, the scale and pace of deployment will determine whether exporters can defend ‘green’ credentials in premium markets.
Legal and policy implications
Resetting the methane target requires amendment of the CCRA; it will then cascade into the emissions budgets and sector strategies. The government has also flagged wider CCRA changes (eg: industrial allocation processes and a framework for recognising non-forestry carbon removals), which could rebalance where abatement comes from across the economy.
The reset crystallises a familiar conflict in New Zealand politics – rural stability versus climate ambition. For the governing Coalition, the move bolsters rural support and answers long-standing grievances about ‘unscientific’ targets and levies.
For Opposition parties and many climate advocates, the reset is symptomatic of a retreat from climate leadership, handing them a clear attack line with urban and youth voters. Internationally, lowering the target while relying on ‘no additional warming’ accounting invites scrutiny just as New Zealand positions itself in trade-and-sustainability forums through to 2030–35.
The electoral stakes are therefore not only regional, but also reputational. Whether the government can prove real-world methane reductions, via technology and practice change, fast enough to neutralise claims of backsliding will likely feature in the next campaign cycle.
Bottom line
The methane reset reduces immediate regulatory heat on farmers but raises the bar on delivery; without a price, the credibility of New Zealand’s climate stance now hinges on measurable, short-term cuts from innovation and extension on farm. Whether that happens quickly enough will shape export earnings, legal settings and the next election’s climate battleground.
DISCLAIMER: All the information published in the Property eSpeaking, Commercial eSpeaking, Trust eSpeaking, Rural eSpeaking, and Fineprint newsletters is true and accurate to the best of the authors’ knowledge. It should not be a substitute for legal advice. No liability is assumed by the authors or publisher for losses suffered by any person or organisation relying directly or indirectly on this article. Views expressed are those of individual authors, and do not necessarily reflect the view of this firm. Articles appearing in Property eSpeaking, Commercial eSpeaking, Trust eSpeaking, and Fineprint may be reproduced with prior approval from the editor and credit given to the source. Copyright, NZ LAW Limited, 2025. Editor: Adrienne Olsen. E-mail: [email protected]. Ph: 029 286 3650 or 04 496 5513.
